Is The Universe Finetuned For Life Or Is God Omnipotent?

[Badger]

Guys. This is so fun. No hard feelings!

[mymistake]

This argument is epic fail. The (alleged) fact that the universe is fine-tuned does not entail that God lacked freedom and power to create exactly the kind of universe he intended.

 

Ah but you don't care because you are neither arguing the universe is fine tuned nor created.  Furthermore you do not claim that there is a God and you reject the standard idea of omnipotence. 

 

Now we don't have to waste 7 pages watching you dance around.

[falemon]

 

Becareful here. I said: if they are not necessary truths.

 

Just sounds like a lame cop out, like, you say they are not necessary truths, but don't doubt them in your actions. You seem completely trusting of these complex devices that run off of these "unnecessary truths" while seeming to doubt them. Sounds like a terrible case of self deception going on here, like, one part of you knows they are truths, but another part of you considers them to be unnecessary truths. Yet the part of you that doubts it talks and the part of you that believes it acts.

 

So then what are you in all this? You seem pretty confused.

[Badger]

 

This argument is epic fail. The (alleged) fact that the universe is fine-tuned does not entail that God lacked freedom and power to create exactly the kind of universe he intended.

 

Ah but you don't care because you are neither arguing the universe is fine tuned nor created.  Furthermore you do not claim that there is a God and you reject the standard idea of omnipotence. 

 

Now we don't have to waste 7 pages watching you dance around.

 

 

I can criticize his argument, though, right? That is all I intended to do.

 

Besides, the definition of omnipotence I am using is actually pretty standard one.

[Badger]

 

Becareful here. I said: if they are not necessary truths.

 

Just sounds like a lame cop out, like, you say they are not necessary truths, but don't doubt them in your actions. You seem completely trusting of these complex devices that run off of these "unnecessary truths" while seeming to doubt them. Sounds like a terrible case of self deception going on here, like, one part of you knows they are truths, but another part of you considers them to be unnecessary truths. Yet the part of you that doubts it talks and the part of you that believes it acts.

 

So then what are you in all this? You seem pretty confused.

 

I presumed that you know the difference between contingent truth and necessary truth.

[Ravenstar]

 

 

Mathematics isn't a law either - it's a way to describe things..and is 'man-made' in a way,  the same way logic isn't a law but a way to deduct and reason out those laws.

 

If I have 3 apples in one hand and 2 apples in my other hand, I have 5 apples.  This was true before numeric symbols were ever conceived and it would be true on the planets Helicon or Gaia even if beings there had never been exposed to human mathmatics.  Math just gave us a language useful to talk about this reality. 

True.

 

The apples exist regardless of language or even delineation by mind... math describes the relationships of those 'things' - whatever they may be.

 

3+2=5 apples is the reality, but without the mathematics there would be no way to communicate that reality effectively. The apples themselves, and their relationships are not dependent on the math - they ARE, they exist outside of the mathematics. I suggest that this is only applicable in the dualistic universe though. Once you go into the concept of a singular reality math is useless.

 

Hopefully people on Helicon will be able to relate whatever symbols they use for mathematics to our own.. the 'reality' is the same and there will be found our 'common ground'.

 

Or maybe like on Star Trek when aliens had to telepathically send a metaphor for the atomic structure of hydrogen to Deanna Troi to communicate their needs we will also find ways to share our individual descriptions of reality well enough to communicate.

 

Maybe I'm being unclear.. or not communicating it well. Sorry - don't know the formula for this  lol

[falemon]

I presumed that you know the difference between contingent truth and necessary truth.

 

The term was never necessary for me in my studies or anything else for that matter, just the understanding behind it.

 

Okay, having read up on it it seems to mean pretty much what I said, and again it still seems a cop out, or to put it in better words, a wild card excuse for making unusual claims.

 

"I don't believe anything is a necessary truth", what does that mean? Does it influence the reality of your actions or just the words you use to debate. Why do your words and heart defy what you know to be true in the mind?

 

Now I know all that's said about the heart in the bible, but dude the heart pumps blood. The metaphorical expressions of its role are due to the misconceptions they had about the heart being the, well, heart of your thoughts. Seriously the heart pumps blood and responds a fair bit to adrenaline.

[raoul]

 

I caught what you meant Deva and want to confirm what you've posited by adding something I read in a book titled 'Case against god' in which Smith, the author, says that any attempt to describe a supernatural being (a god) by natural means or logic or anything else for that matter is meaningless because:

 If a person is doing so (as is our misguided theist here) then:

 a. the god is not supernatural or

 b. the person doing the describing is supernatural

 

And if a or b are sound, which I believe they are, then no god orat least none remotely resembling the myths from the bible.

 

So what Smith says is meaningless and we can ignore him.

 

You betray yourself xtian! To wit: Smith was talking about the person, like YOU, who presumes to speak for the imaginary god. In addition, he'd written over 20 - 30 pages on the subject. I merely put it more concisely as to not bore anyone to tears.

 

I say you betray yourself because it should be apparent to everyone by now you're merely here to 'preach' under the guise of a sophormoric attempt at philosophical reasoning because you obviously missed what I'd written initially regarding Smith's writings. In other words, you're not here to listen to anyone about anything. You're simply here to share the dreary 'good' news which isn't really that good. I know because I used to be a xtian apologist and your modus operandi is almost identical to my own behavior with the 'lost'..

[falemon]

 

 

 

 

Mathematics isn't a law either - it's a way to describe things..and is 'man-made' in a way,  the same way logic isn't a law but a way to deduct and reason out those laws.

 

If I have 3 apples in one hand and 2 apples in my other hand, I have 5 apples.  This was true before numeric symbols were ever conceived and it would be true on the planets Helicon or Gaia even if beings there had never been exposed to human mathmatics.  Math just gave us a language useful to talk about this reality. 

 

 

True.

 

The apples exist regardless of language or even delineation by mind... math describes the relationships of those 'things' - whatever they may be.

 

3+2=5 apples is the reality, but without the mathematics there would be no way to communicate that reality effectively. The apples themselves, and their relationships are not dependent on the math - they ARE, they exist outside of the mathematics. I suggest that this is only applicable in the dualistic universe though. Once you go into the concept of a singular reality math is useless.

 

Hopefully people on Helicon will be able to relate whatever symbols they use for mathematics to our own.. the 'reality' is the same and there will be found our 'common ground'.

 

Or maybe like on Star Trek when aliens had to telepathically send a metaphor for the atomic structure of hydrogen to Deanna Troi to communicate their needs we will also find ways to share our individual descriptions of reality well enough to communicate.

 

Maybe I'm being unclear.. or not communicating it well. Sorry - don't know the formula for this  lol

 

 

 

Truth + truth = truth.

 

False + truth = undefined.

 

Truth + maths = formulas.

 

False + maths = nothing.

 

Truth + science = understanding.

 

False + science = nothing.

 

Truth + christianity = doubt

 

False + christianity = word!

[Ravenstar]

"Besides, the definition of omnipotence I am using is actually pretty standard one."

 

Not seeing it actually... it either means ALL, or it doesn't. It's kind of a black or white word(prefix).

Oxford Dictionary omni-

Pronunciation: /ˈɒmni/

Definition of omni-

combiningForm

• all; of all things: omniscient omnifarious
• in all ways or places: omnicompetent omnipresent

Origin:

from Latin omnis 'all'

 

...Any discussion becomes irrelevant and unproductive unless definitions can be agreed on.

 

[raoul]

Guys. This is so fun. No hard feelings!

Naw, I didn't take it as such. Besides it's the same as watching a rabid dog dance around until it's put out of its misery.

[Ravenstar]

 

 

 

 

Mathematics isn't a law either - it's a way to describe things..and is 'man-made' in a way,  the same way logic isn't a law but a way to deduct and reason out those laws.

 

If I have 3 apples in one hand and 2 apples in my other hand, I have 5 apples.  This was true before numeric symbols were ever conceived and it would be true on the planets Helicon or Gaia even if beings there had never been exposed to human mathmatics.  Math just gave us a language useful to talk about this reality. 

 

True.

 

The apples exist regardless of language or even delineation by mind... math describes the relationships of those 'things' - whatever they may be.

 

3+2=5 apples is the reality, but without the mathematics there would be no way to communicate that reality effectively. The apples themselves, and their relationships are not dependent on the math - they ARE, they exist outside of the mathematics. I suggest that this is only applicable in the dualistic universe though. Once you go into the concept of a singular reality math is useless.

 

Hopefully people on Helicon will be able to relate whatever symbols they use for mathematics to our own.. the 'reality' is the same and there will be found our 'common ground'.

 

Or maybe like on Star Trek when aliens had to telepathically send a metaphor for the atomic structure of hydrogen to Deanna Troi to communicate their needs we will also find ways to share our individual descriptions of reality well enough to communicate.

 

Maybe I'm being unclear.. or not communicating it well. Sorry - don't know the formula for this  lol

 

 

Truth + truth = truth.

 

False + truth = undefined.

 

Truth + maths = formulas.

 

False + maths = nothing.

 

Truth + science = understanding.

 

False + science = nothing.

 

Truth + christianity = doubt

 

False + christianity = word!

You are a formulaic genius!    you! 

[Badger]

 

I presumed that you know the difference between contingent truth and necessary truth.

 

The term was never necessary for me in my studies or anything else for that matter, just the understanding behind it.

 

Okay, having read up on it it seems to mean pretty much what I said, and again it still seems a cop out, or to put it in better words, a wild card excuse for making unusual claims.

 

"I don't believe anything is a necessary truth", what does that mean? Does it influence the reality of your actions or just the words you use to debate. Why do your words and heart defy what you know to be true in the mind?

 

Now I know all that's said about the heart in the bible, but dude the heart pumps blood. The metaphorical expressions of its role are due to the misconceptions they had about the heart being the, well, heart of your thoughts. Seriously the heart pumps blood and responds a fair bit to adrenaline.

 

It is not cop out. Let me ask this (I have asked this at least once in this thread). Could the physical laws, such as gravity or thermodynamics, either not exist at all or been different?

[Badger]

 

 

I caught what you meant Deva and want to confirm what you've posited by adding something I read in a book titled 'Case against god' in which Smith, the author, says that any attempt to describe a supernatural being (a god) by natural means or logic or anything else for that matter is meaningless because:

 If a person is doing so (as is our misguided theist here) then:

 a. the god is not supernatural or

 b. the person doing the describing is supernatural

 

And if a or b are sound, which I believe they are, then no god orat least none remotely resembling the myths from the bible.

 

So what Smith says is meaningless and we can ignore him.

 

You betray yourself xtian! To wit: Smith was talking about the person, like YOU, who presumes to speak for the imaginary god. In addition, he'd written over 20 - 30 pages on the subject. I merely put it more concisely as to not bore anyone to tears.

 

According to Smith, any attempt to describe a supernatural being is meaningless. This is self-defeating. He is describing a supernatural being as such that its describing is meaningless. So what he is saying is.... meaningless.

 

I say you betray yourself because it should be apparent to everyone by now you're merely here to 'preach' under the guise of a sophormoric attempt at philosophical reasoning because you obviously missed what I'd written initially regarding Smith's writings. In other words, you're not here to listen to anyone about anything. You're simply here to share the dreary 'good' news which isn't really that good. I know because I used to be a xtian apologist and your modus operandi is almost identical to my own behavior with the 'lost'..

 

Nah, I am not preaching. What am I preaching here? Not about gods, nor Christianity...

[Ouroboros]

It is not cop out. Let me ask this (I have asked this at least once in this thread). Could the physical laws, such as gravity or thermodynamics, either not exist at all or been different?

 

I want to participate in this wild discussion too!!! Dog pile!!! Woot!

 

I bite. Yes, I think they can be different. Actually, if I'm not totally mistaken, some computer model some scientists did showed that laws actually could be different. The "Fine Tuned" universe is a bit misunderstood. Fine Tuned doesn't mean there's only one way of tuning it. Of some laws are changed, then other laws have to change as well. Most likely, the universe at this specific point in time is in a transitional state rather than a fixed (static) state. The Fine Tuned argument assumed a fixed state of the Universe, but there are things pointing to something different, i.e. the Universe is changing as we speak...

 

In other words, God (as a personal entity/sentient being) would have a choice.

 

But, the problem with most people arguing the "Fine Tuned" universe assume that there's only one configuration possible, which would mean that God was limited to only one configuration. Hence, if that was true, God would be limited to only one way of making the Universe.

[Ravenstar]

Raoul....    

 

It is fun though, Badger.. it's been a while since we had a guest over. We must be more hospitable folks! if we want to have more play dates!

 

I think, sometimes, when it's just us x-ers for too long it gets kind of masturbatory here... on some topics

[falemon]

 

It is not cop out. Let me ask this (I have asked this at least once in this thread). Could the physical laws, such as gravity or thermodynamics, either not exist at all or been different?

 

Relative to testability and accuracy? no they cannot be different because they are so accurate that they correct predict events orders of magnitudes beyond the need for a more *accurate formula. They can accurately be used to simulate Universes that expand in exactly the same way our Universe expands, creating a distribution the same as what we see in Universe.

 

Its something I call relative objectivity. Suppose you lived in a deception, but everything you and everyone you met also lived in that deception? Then everything within that deception is objectively true relative to you exposure only to that system. You need to escape from that delusion in order to see the subjectivity of it - much like Christianity

 

----

*= accurate to absolute truths.

[mymistake]

 

Let me ask this (I have asked this at least once in this thread). Could the physical laws, such as gravity or thermodynamics, either not exist at all or been different?

 

 

Hold on a minute.  I will just jump into my Out-Of-Our-Universe transportation and find out.

 

Good Grief!

[Badger]

I bite. Yes, I think they can be different.

 

That is what I think, too. (And obviously they could fail to exist). But that means that physical laws are contingent and not necessary.

[Ouroboros]

 

I bite. Yes, I think they can be different.

 

That is what I think, too. (And obviously they could fail to exist). But that means that physical laws are contingent and not necessary.

 

Right. And I added a little thing in my post that God (the personal/sentient kind) would have a choice of what kind of universe he would want to make.

 

However, most of the time, the "Fine Tune" argument has the premise that there's only one single configuration for how the Universe could be, which leads to that God would be limited to that single configuration of the Universe. So using the "Fine Tuned" argument isn't that great. It has that trapdoor in it.

 

So a better "fine tuned" argument (with lower case) would be that given that all parameters could be different, the all are in balance and coherence for whatever they're set at. Call it "balanced tuning" argument instead. So a "Tuner" (Creator) would have to set all of them to balance them out.

 

The problem with that though is that we can't know if that's necessary. We don't know if it's necessary to have someone adjusting the knobs and buttons for the Universe configuration, or if they naturally fall into place.

[falemon]

Well maybe God just created lots of different Universes, y'know, because He is so powerful that his limitless power needs no limit on the expense of all things.

 

Or maybe His mighty voice only needed to dictate the conditions he cared about, like a Sun, Moon and Stars, then the Universe configured itself to fit that. That sounds like a beautiful expression of unlimited power.

 

And then somewhere down the line He decided to hide himself and make it incredibly difficult to know his existence, but for some reasons decided to judge people as evil for not believing in something he left absolutely no evidence for.

 

Or maybe the there are just lots of different Universes (or the Universe is just bigger than we think it is), y'know, because the laws of nature are just so great that we are just a small expense.

 

And maybe the Universe's vast number of creations needn't dictate the conditions it cared about, but given the large number of occurrences a Universe (this Universe) emerged. That sounds like a beautiful expression of nature's unlimited creativity and power.

 

And then somewhere down the line people decided to utter stories about the Universe's creation, using a God character to add depth to their philosophies and because at the time the idea of a Deity was generally accepted as true people were judged as evil for not believing in something that there was no absolutely evidence for not existing but taken for granted as existing

[Vigile]

His mighty voice only needed to dictate the conditions he cared about,

 

It occurs to me if he cares about things he is limited by his own sense of scruples and sense of taste too.  This unlimited thing is so constraining.  Xians would be better off if they just dropped it and took a different approach instead of playing the definition game. 

[midniterider]

 

 

 

If there was an almighty god he could just snap his fingers and poof, instant perfectly balanced world containing life. No fine tuning necessary.

 

Devil's advocate for a moment: An all powerful super god could just snap his fingers and the universe would be instantly tuned.  Tuned is our word, not his. 

 

I personally just don't think the analogy the guy used in the vid was all that compelling, though he does drive a pretty cool car. 

 

 

I don't know about God but some people like to have fun with the details. Yes, I agree with the instantly tuned creation. He could have done it that way. Though God might also have created this wonderfully dead universe then said, "Hmmm, maybe I'll create some people now....I'll have to move the planet a little bit, give it an atmosphere...." Like a hobby. The pleasure is in the details. Sure, I could go to the store and buy a fish, but there is more pleasure in going fishing.

 

And yes, "tuned" is just an interpretation of what creationists see to match up with their belief in God, obviously. :-)

 

Another possibility is after billions of years, a Godless universe arrived at a point where some one celled organisms sprang to life.

 

I think Dark Antics analogy was showing that God, who is supposed to be all powerful, would never decide to put constraints on the way he creates. I think an all powerful God could do whatever he wanted in whatever way he wanted. But maybe I missed the boat on his explanation. And still, where is this God?

[raoul]

 

 

 

I caught what you meant Deva and want to confirm what you've posited by adding something I read in a book titled 'Case against god' in which Smith, the author, says that any attempt to describe a supernatural being (a god) by natural means or logic or anything else for that matter is meaningless because:

 If a person is doing so (as is our misguided theist here) then:

 a. the god is not supernatural or

 b. the person doing the describing is supernatural

 

And if a or b are sound, which I believe they are, then no god orat least none remotely resembling the myths from the bible.

 

So what Smith says is meaningless and we can ignore him.

 

You betray yourself xtian! To wit: Smith was talking about the person, like YOU, who presumes to speak for the imaginary god. In addition, he'd written over 20 - 30 pages on the subject. I merely put it more concisely as to not bore anyone to tears.

 

According to Smith, any attempt to describe a supernatural being is meaningless. This is self-defeating. He is describing a supernatural being as such that its describing is meaningless. So what he is saying is.... meaningless.

 

I say you betray yourself because it should be apparent to everyone by now you're merely here to 'preach' under the guise of a sophormoric attempt at philosophical reasoning because you obviously missed what I'd written initially regarding Smith's writings. In other words, you're not here to listen to anyone about anything. You're simply here to share the dreary 'good' news which isn't really that good. I know because I used to be a xtian apologist and your modus operandi is almost identical to my own behavior with the 'lost'..

 

Nah, I am not preaching. What am I preaching here? Not about gods, nor Christianity...

 

He was NOT describing any such being. He WAS simply positing the premise of futility in any attempt of description. Looking at the book now since your obfuscation may confuse others, he wrote about various attributes that YOUR sect or cult as I prefer calling it attribute to this god. He then picked apart each one. I never cease laughing at sophomoric attempts by people ill equipped to take on someone like Smith or, as was the case during various debates I just concluded with another cultist, Ehrmann (a very accomplished bible scholar/critic). And YES you ARE preaching at least on the subconscious level. But we have to first have you attempt a little intellectual honesty before delving into the psychological aspects of the delusion you may be mired in.

[falemon]

 

His mighty voice only needed to dictate the conditions he cared about,

 

It occurs to me if he cares about things he is limited by his own sense of scruples and sense of taste too.  This unlimited thing is so constraining.  Xians would be better off if they just dropped it and took a different approach instead of playing the definition game. 

 

 

Well after reading The Alchemist and The Secret I started thinking differently about what faith really means. I realised that all that talk about the faith that moves mountains or the faith the size of a gran of mustard seed really were just statements of no effect. For the last two years I practiced Christianity knowing that nobody really had the faith they spoke of, and when I learned about the pattern of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_6-iVz1R0o'>superstition and self deception, thinking of the denominations that disagree with tongues and the uncontrollable yells of the Holy Spirit and so on, I started studying the Bible deeply and like most people who read the Bible as it is, I heard the message that most people get from reading the Bible, that God is not real.

 

I could all of a sudden see the great beauty in the commands of the bible. Then the picture of the men who sat down thousands of years ago and tried to create a civilised society that followed great principles of love, justice and simplicity came to my mind. I started to imagine the group of Caananites forming a new way of life after the fall of their rulers who saw them as filthy dogs. I started to understand why they put so much value on cleanliness, I started to understand why God had a wrath. I even started to question whether Judaism came from the Caananites, their rulers or Egypt, but it didn't matter because the Bible was telling me everything I needed to know. It was speaking to me, I discovered its purpose, not to make us follow God, but to show us there are not many gods, and in the absence of knowing what had created us they could do only one thing, put an end to many gods and settle with a single all powerful God.

 

Judaism was one step closer to atheism, and Jesus was another leap because he taught us that or power needs no God but a man. Follow Jesus, the man who considered himself to be God. The next step is to realise the truth, that the Universe is the God, but it is not a God, it is just matter, it is just what happens.